Darkvision Ruins Dungeon-Crawling

[Maxperson]

Every once in a while, an argument on EN World goes so far off the rails it becomes Art.

Weeeeellll, this does all relate to darkvison, so it's not that far off the rails.

 

[Reynard]

Weeeeellll, this does all relate to darkvison, so it's not that far off the rails.

Bob: He what's that over there?
Bill: Where?
Bob: There, at the edge of the woods.
Bill: Where?
Bob: THERE (points.)
Bill: Oh... I think that's Buck.
Buck: What?
Bob: That ain't Buck.
Bill: (squints) Oh, that's Bigfoot.
Bob: (squints) Oh, yeah.
Buck: Where?

You can absolutely help someone see something, even if you can't help them with their actual sight.

 

[payn]

The rule itself includes the fiction in it. On a personal level, I hate blanket mechanics because almost invariably you will encounter nonsensical applications.

I find its not that difficult to make sense of it, and a much better use of time instead of shutting it down in table arguments over what counts.

 

[Maxperson]

Bob: He what's that over there?
Bill: Where?
Bob: There, at the edge of the woods.
Bill: Where?
Bob: THERE (points.)
Bill: Oh... I think that's Buck.
Buck: What?
Bob: That ain't Buck.
Bill: (squints) Oh, that's Bigfoot.
Bob: (squints) Oh, yeah.
Buck: Where?

You can absolutely help someone see something, even if you can't help them with their actual sight.

That is not what is under discussion here. What you wrote has Bob already succeeding at his individual roll and then guiding Bill to it. That's not at issue.

What is at issue is when neither of them have seen anything.

 

[Maxperson]

I find its not that difficult to make sense of it, and a much better use of time instead of shutting it down in table arguments over what counts.

There is no table argument. The rule is that is has to be something that can actually be helped with. Perception is not something that can be aided under these circumstances, so it's individual rolls and we move on.

Someone who would stop game play over this isn't someone I want at the table. It would take a very self-centered player to hold the table up to argue this during the game.

 

[James Gasik]

RAW doesn't allow it, though. RAW requires it be something that Aragorn could actually help with in order to grant advantage, which as you note he cannot help Legolas in thr above situation.

My position isn't regardless of RAW. My position is RAW.

You may very well be correct, but it's obviously debatable because, well, people are debating it. I personally try to avoid "it does/doesn't make sense" as a basis for rulings when I run the game, because it basically boils down to "DM may I perform X action" scenarios. I don't want my players second guessing their own actions based on whether or not I'd allow it based on my perceptions of reality (which are inherently flawed because I can only perceive 0.0035% of the eletromagnetic spectrum, lol).

At any rate, if a DM wants to allow people to assist each other with Perception checks, it's their prerogative to do so, and it's not even wrong ("rulings not rules" is what WotC keeps saying). It's just different.

I find it eyebrow raising, I can only assume you find it patently ridiculous, but others apparently do not. With regards to roleplaying games in a fictional space, I think everyone has something that goes beyond the pale- some people hate the idea that a high level Fighter can fall two miles and not die, others point to Vesna Vulović. Some people can't see how someone could wield a quarterstaff in one hand as one could a spear, others are perfectly happy allowing staff and shield users to employ Polearm Mastery. I could go on, but the point is made. Rules as Written is no longer king, which makes discussions about rules incredibly frustrating, as the foundation of modern D&D wasn't built on bedrock, but something more akin to marshy ground or sand. People are legitimately allowed to say "I don't see it that way" (and really, they always have been able to), and nothing, not the sacred text, not the prophets who write it, nor the words of people who have been playing and running games for half a century (or longer!) is likely going to change their mind.

The bottom line is, there are penalties for relying on darkvision alone. Some people don't like them, others find it tedious to use them. That doesn't mean they don't exist, whether you can gain advantage on Perception checks or not. That makes it fairer than say, 3e darkvision. It's a trade off if you don't want to faff around with torches, lanterns, and 11' poles, just as taking the light cantrip or casting continual flame inside a scroll tube to make a crude flashlight is.

If being able to see in the dark without light ruins dungeon crawling, then dungeon crawling has been ruined for a very long time. But given the fact that there are myriad other ways to keep players "in the dark", so to speak, from mist, fog, smoke, illusions, hidden doors, fake walls, magical darkness, etc. etc., I don't really agree with this point of view.

Because even if you excised darkvision from the game, you couldn't just stop there. You'd also have to get rid of dancing lights, light, create campfire, produce flame, continual light, devil's sight*, polymorph and wild shape (into a beast that has darkvision), familiars, animal companions, any PC race that normally has darkvision when encountered as a foe, and a ton of things I haven't thought of yet.

*depending on whether or not you believe that this ability should include darkvision.

 

[GMMichael]

Every once in a while, an argument on EN World goes so far off the rails it becomes Art.

Isn't there some rule about all threads devolving into Alignment arguments if they go on long enough?

Max should play some Modos 2. It has no Help action, no dim light rule, and no Disadvantage to worry about. (Speaking of devolving threads . . . )

 

[Maxperson]

Isn't there some rule about all threads devolving into Alignment arguments if they go on long enough?

Max should play some Modos 2. It has no Help action, no dim light rule, and no Disadvantage to worry about. (Speaking of devolving threads . . . )

Why? I like the dim light rule as it makes darkvison useful in an emergency, but stupid to rely on. I also like the help another rules. You can help when it makes sense to, and you can't when it doesn't. I also like advantage and disadvantage. One of the best things 5e came up with.

P.s. Batman is every alignment.

 

[Maxperson]

You may very well be correct, but it's obviously debatable because, well, people are debating it. I personally try to avoid "it does/doesn't make sense" as a basis for rulings when I run the game, because it basically boils down to "DM may I perform X action" scenarios. I don't want my players second guessing their own actions based on whether or not I'd allow it based on my perceptions of reality (which are inherently flawed because I can only perceive 0.0035% of the eletromagnetic spectrum, lol).

Whether or not this is debatable, the bolded is not true. People debate whether the Earth is round and other facts. That doesn't really make those things debatable. Some people just try to debate things that are not debatable.

At any rate, if a DM wants to allow people to assist each other with Perception checks, it's their prerogative to do so, and it's not even wrong ("rulings not rules" is what WotC keeps saying). It's just different.

I find it eyebrow raising, I can only assume you find it patently ridiculous, but others apparently do not. With regards to roleplaying games in a fictional space, I think everyone has something that goes beyond the pale- some people hate the idea that a high level Fighter can fall two miles and not die, others point to Vesna Vulović. Some people can't see how someone could wield a quarterstaff in one hand as one could a spear, others are perfectly happy allowing staff and shield users to employ Polearm Mastery. I could go on, but the point is made. Rules as Written is no longer king, which makes discussions about rules incredibly frustrating, as the foundation of modern D&D wasn't built on bedrock, but something more akin to marshy ground or sand. People are legitimately allowed to say "I don't see it that way" (and really, they always have been able to), and nothing, not the sacred text, not the prophets who write it, nor the words of people who have been playing and running games for half a century (or longer!) is likely going to change their mind.

If people had just said to me, "It doesn't matter what the rules say, I'm going to allow it anyway." I wouldn't have been arguing. I'd have just told them that for me I like running perception and help another by the rules, because I want it to make sense, and then I'd have told them that if they are having fun at their table running it like that, they are doing it right because fun is the point of the game.

God knows I alter or ignore rules often enough. I'm not going to fault someone else for doing it.

Instead some are giving me the argument (that is in my opinion absurd), that just staring at a bush silently since there's nothing to verbalize, is somehow helping the guy next to them see a rabbit better. And some of them try to move the goalposts and include other senses to the visual only roll or assume the helper has already seen the thing and is guiding the one they are helping.

 

[Starfox]

I wish we could be satisfied with stating an opinion, such as about how the Help action works, without making it a debate. Debates belong in their own threads. Once you have said "I think X" in a thread not devoted to debate, there is not much point in saying it again, especially if you are repeating yourself. As it is we get pages of posts not dealing with the issue at hand, essentially white noise.